About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
on capitol hill right now on the a hearing for the benghazi terror attack where he addressed the pentagon's response to the assault on our consulate on september 11th. four americans, including our ambassador to libya, died in that attack. this comes just a day after mr. panetta emotionally charged parting speech to students at georgetown university where he blasted the massive defense cuts known as the sequester, set to go into effect just weeks from now. >> if sequester happens, let me tell you some of the results. we will furlough as many as 800,000 dod civilians around the country for up to 22 days. they could face a 20% cut in their salary. you don't think that will impact on our economy? you don't think that's going to impact on jobs? you don't think that's going to impact on our ability to recover from the recession? jon: mr. panetta also deliver ad stark warning about the scale and scope of cyber attacks on this country saying they could cripple the united states. >> we are literally the target of thousands of cyber attacks every day. every day. thousands of sigher about attacks t
, first of all, the pentagon didn't show you any video of things that missed. that's bad pr. and the percentage of weapons that were smart weapons in the first gulf war while infinitely more than anything the iraqis had was remarkably small compared to the impression the pentagon gave in their military briefings where they'd only show pictures of smart bombs and smart missiles and things flying through windows. that was a very, very tiny percentage of the munitions actually expended. so i don't think this was so much a revolution in military affairs so much as a vivid demonstration, as you point out, of just how proficient the united states was in waging war especially against a less proficient adversary. but it also was military affairs in a more philosophical, fundamental way, and that is claus wits still has a vote here, and the ultimate goal of the conflict was a political goal and, therefore, the military planning and the air war being a classic case in point of this were designed with a traditional military conclusion which in truth was not revolutionary at all which w
and hope the senate will act quickly to confirm him and put him in place in the pentagon. >> in terms of the way he answered various questions, i know you took issue with the tough question style of republican senators. is the white house pleased with how senator hagel answered questions? >> i believe he did a fine job. if you look, if you take all the news clips, not the whole performance, but the news clips that have dominated television report and on this, they have focused on a series of exchanges that i think, by any estimation, largely represent the injuring over issues like, why did you disagree with me over iraq? we are prepared to say that senator obama had a view on iraq. it was one of the reasons he ran on that position and one in 2008 against senator mccain. he vowed to end the war in iraq in a with a protected our national security interests. now, he is focused on winding down the war in afghanistan. someone bizarrely, and given that we have 56,000 americans in uniform in afghanistan, senators yesterday, in a hearing for the nomination of the secretary of defense asked ve
be appropriate. >>steve: the pentagon is really -- you know, you detail very astutely in your piece, they have fallen down in helping these guys transition to a new job. when this guy left, somebody said you might be able to get a job driving a truck, a beer truck in milwaukee. that's the kind of work you should think of. financially, his family would be better off money-wise if he would have been killed in service. >> that actually came from another seal team six member i spoke with who is still in seal team six who is about to go in deployment. he said because the navy is very generous about -- the military is very generous about life insurance. he said figure over on -- he said if i go over on my next deployment and get killed i know my kids will go to school and my wife will be taken care of. but if i come back and leave before my 20, i'll have nothing. >>brian: there's a few things that come out. one, the guy came back, a lot of people in the white house are going to be writing books. one guy writes a book and he's making a lot of money but he's not about to keep it because he's being sue
during the testimony, it was interesting because panetta said the pentagon, the c.i.a., and the department of state were all on board with sending the rebels in syria where there has been mass genocide because ofor us to send them arms. you know who said no? the white house. well, we don't know if it's going to work. we don't know which of the rebels to arm. ultimately we don't know if it will result in the ouster of assad. >> brian: the "washington post" lead editorial today says hillary clinton and david petraeus, running the c.i.a. identified the group that they believe would have been the preferrable group to take over through all the rebels, they weeded through and had a plan. and the president nixed it. the word is too political. they wanted to make it seem we're not on a war footing with the election a month away. >> gretchen: maybe the election playing a huge role. let's look at the fox news polls right now. recently conducted, how many people feel our country compared to five years ago? nearly half of those polled say america is weaker and less powerful to
the enemy didn't have. but the second two points i think at that first of all the pentagon didn't show you any video of things it missed. that's bad pr. and the percentage of weapons that were smart weapons in the first gulf war while infinitely anything more than the iraqis had was remarkably small. compared to the impression the pentagon gave in the military briefings where they only showed pictures of smart bombs and smart missiles seen flying through windows. that was a very, very tiny percentage of the munitions actually expend. so i don't think this is so much a revolution of military affairs so much as a vivid demonstration as you pointed out as just a proficient at united states was in waging war, especially against a less proficient adversary. but it also was a military affairs, and that is the ultimate goal of the conflict was a political goal. and so, therefore, the military planning that involve both smart and dumb weapons in a war where design with a traditional military conclusion, which in truth was not revolution at all which was getting the enemy to do what you wanted. so
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)